U.S. Courthouse security officers have valid due process claims

The plaintiffs in this employment case were security officers who worked at federal courthouses in upstate New York. After they were terminated from their positions, they sued under the due process clause. The Court of Appeals finds they both have a case.

The case is Atturbury v. United States Marshals Service, issued on October 25. One plaintiff worked at the courthouse in Rochester. The other worked at the courthouse in Poughkeepsie, which mostly handles bankruptcy cases. They were both actually employed by a private security company, Akal, which the Marshals Service used for security services at federal courthouses. So you learn something new every day. I thought the security officers worked directly for the U.S. government. They do not. They worked for private firms that contract with the government.

That employment relationship raises questions about whether plaintiffs can challenge their terminations under the due process clause, which only regulates government action, not private action. A Wal-Mart employee has no due process rights, only certain government employees. In an earlier appeal in this case, the Second Circuit stated that "an employee of a government contractor may under certain circumstances have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment." That case was Atturbury v. U.S. Marshals Service, 805 F.3d. 398 (2d Cir. 2015). These cases return to the Second Circuit, which now holds that language in the collective bargaining agreement, which says that employees cannot be terminated without "just cause," gives the plaintiffs a property interest in their continued employment, triggering due process protections.

The question now becomes whether the plaintiffs can actually win their due process claims on the merits. The Court of Appeals (Newman, Cabranes and Lynch) says they can. The procedures the Marshals Service used in firing these guys "have thus far not comported with the requirements of due process," the Court of Appeals says. While the plaintiffs were informed of their alleged misconduct that gave rise to Akal's investigations, the Marshal's Service did not explain the reasons for removing them from the Court Security Officer program. That's not due process. And, since there were disputed facts with respect to plaintiffs' cases, they was entitled to "some form of hearing" on those issues. The Marshal's Service must consider their cases anew.